Download - United Nations in Serbia

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis report was prepared by the Center for Liberal-Democratic Studies (CLDS) forthe Joint Programme Support to National Efforts for the Promotion of Youth Employmentand Management of Migration in Serbia, financed by the MDG AchievementFund. The research team worked under the leadership of Gordana Matkovic.The assistance of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (RSO), and in particularof Vladan Bozanic, in the data analysis is gratefully acknowledged.Thanks go also to Dragana Marjanovic and Valli Corbanese of the InternationalLabour Office for their comments on the first draft of the report.3

ContentsExecutive summary 6Introduction 71. Data and methodology 92. Main characteristics of the surveyed population 103. Financial social assistance and employment record 144. Job search and return to education 185. Referrals 246. Is activation of FSA beneficiaries possible in Serbia? 277. Identification of groups with greatest activation potential 298. Towards more inclusive policy options 31References 35Statistical Annex 364

List of Tables, Figures and BoxesTable 1. Main characteristics of FSA recipientsTable 2. Reasons for losing the job (FSA beneficiaries, %)Table 3. FSA recipients opting to work rather than remain on benefits (%)Table 4. Reasons for not looking for a job (Beneficiaries registered withthe NES),%Table 5. Main reasons for not returning to school (%)Table 6. Main reasons for not participating to training programmes (%)Table 7. Selected indicators to monitor activation processesFigure 1. FSA and other social transfers (prior month) %Figure 2. Main reasons for opting to work (%)Figure 3. Main obstacles to work (%)Figure 4. Willingness to return to education or participate to a trainingprogramme (%)Figure 5. Willingness to return to education/participate to training(with conditionality) %Figure 6. Referrals between employment and social services (% )Figure 7. Referrals to education and training (%)Figure 8. Subjective assessment of support received (%)Box 1. Main FSA provisions introduced by the new Law on Social WelfareBox 2. Stylized facts about young FSA recipients (15-29 years old)Box 3. Public works in SerbiaBox 4. Activation policies targeting young FSA recipients (15-29)5

Executive SummaryThe aim of this report is to offer a baseline for the assessment of the effects of thenew Law on Social Welfare adopted by the Government of Serbia in April 2011. Thedata stems from an ad hoc survey conducted among the recipients of financialsocial assistance (FSA) geared to identify their labour market status, educational attainment,job search activities and access to multi-agency referral system.Over two thirds of FSA recipients had attained primary education or less at the timeof the survey, which is significantly lower than the average educational attainmentof the Serbian population. Only 3 percent of respondents reported to be employed,mostly in the informal economy. Over 76 percent of all FSA recipients were registeredas unemployed with the National Employment Service (NES), but only 41 percentwere looking for a job in the four weeks prior to the survey, with young peoplebeing the most active of all. The main reasons for not actively searching for a jobwere primarily poor health and disability, care responsibilities and discouragement.The survey data suggest that most of the potential for activation lies with the youngerpopulation (15-29). Young people are more keen to return to mainstreamed formaleducation or participate to training programmes compared to other groups ofbenefit recipients. However, when conditionality is factored into the entitlement tobenefits, perceptions about education, training and employment shift considerably.Referrals between social and employment services cover a negligible share of recipients,with referrals from social and employment services to formal educationbeing slightly more common.The results of the research point to a social assistance system that encourageswelfare dependency. The only activation strategy currently available, e.g. the publicworks programme, has shown positive results in increasing beneficiaries’ employabilityand work readiness, but only for FSA recipients belonging to the age groups30 to 49 and 50 to 64 years old. This suggests that a different activation strategyneeds to be deployed to target young beneficiaries, namely one that focuses on thereturn to formal education and subsidized training programmes along the lines ofthe measures piloted by the Youth Employment and Migration joint programme.6

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND ACTIVATION IN SERBIA:IN SEARCH OF INCLUSIVE POLICY OPTIONSIntroductionThis report presents the findings of a research on the labour market status, jobsearch activities and activation potential of social assistance beneficiaries in Serbia.The data stem from a survey commissioned by the joint programme Youth Employmentand Migration in Serbia (YEM). The survey, carried out in July 2011, used theexisting Labour Force Survey (LFS) questionnaire complemented by additional questions.1 The aim of the research is to build a baseline for the assessment ofthe effects of the newly adopted Law on Social Welfare. This report presents thebaseline results and a set of policy recommendations for future activation of socialassistance beneficiaries.Within the range of available social protection benefits in the Serbian system, theanalysis focuses on the programme that provides financial social assistance (FSA)to poor individuals and households. 2 FSA is the main social assistance programmefinanced and delivered by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy through the Centresfor Social Work (CSWs). It targets individuals and households with an income belowthe minimum social welfare threshold. The FSA benefit fills the gap between thehousehold’s income and the established threshold adjusted for household size.Under the current arrangement, the FSA program is very passive and encourageslong-term welfare dependency. 3 The new Law on Social Welfare envisages the activationof this specific group of recipients and requires a better alignment of socialand employment services. The main legislative amendments related to the FSAeligibility criteria are summarized in Box 1.1 The timing of the survey may have affected the results due to the nine month eligibility limit of the socialassistance programme. This applies to all social assistance recipients who are able to work and areexpected to take up seasonal jobs during the summer period. Hence, some recipients might have beenalready excluded from the programme in June and July. To ensure comparability of results, it would beimportant that follow-up surveys be carried out in the same period. The reasons for carrying out the surveyin July, despite the above mentioned shortcomings, are two-fold. First, as this research is meant to servefor the medium to long-term monitoring and evaluation of the new Law on Social Welfare (April 2011), thebaseline data were collected as close as possible to the date of entry into force of the law. Second, the researchfindings are supposed to inform the drafting of by-laws on activation of social assistance recipients,which is scheduled to start in late 2011.2 This programme is roughly the same as the previous social assistance benefit (MOP in Serbian language).The name of the programme as well as some provisions were changed by the new Law on Social Welfare(2011).3 Matkovic G., Mijatović B., Analiza uticaja državne finansijske podrške siromašnima, Centar za liberalnodemokratskestudije, Belgrade, 2008; World Bank, Serbia Social Assistance and Child Protection Note,Washington D.C. 2006.7

Box 1. Main FSA provisions introduced by the new Law on Social WelfareThe 2011 Law on Social Welfare significantly changed the FSA benefit levels and coverage, particularlyfor beneficiaries living in multi-member households and for households where members are unableto work. In addition, FSA recipients are expected to become more active in addressing their problems.In nominal terms, the new benefit is set at a higher level, calculated on a new equivalence scale alignedto the modified OECD scale (1 for the first adult, 0.5 for the second and each additional adult, and 0.3 forthe child). For households where no member is able to work, the law provides for a 20 percent benefit increase.The maximum number of eligible members was raised from five to six, while the nine-month eligibilitytimeframe for households where the majority of members is able to work remained unchanged.The land ownership threshold was increased from 0.5 to 1 hectare for households where all membersare unable to work. The definition of individuals unable to work also changed to include college anduniversity students, pregnant women and carers of disabled family members. These amendments areexpected to increase the number of FSA recipients by 60 percent and spending on social assistance by80 percent.There is a new emphasis on the activation of FSA recipients through education, training, employmentand community based work. For the first time, the Law on Social Welfare prescribes that an individualable to work has the right, as well as the obligation, to participate to activities leading to his/her inclusionin society. The new Law gives the possibility to the CSWs to sign agreements with beneficiaries for theiractivation (individual activation plans) and with other service providers, such as the National EmploymentService.Source: Matkovic, G., Poverty in Serbia during the transition – Trends, policies, dilemmas. Paper presentedat the World Bank International Conference on Poverty and Social Inclusion in the Western Balkans,Brussels, December 14-15, 2010The baseline data provided by this research will allow to measure the effect of thechanges introduced by the Law on Social Welfare, especially in terms of FSA recipients’activation. A list of selected indicators for this purpose and the correspondingbaseline values is presented in Section 8.The report is structured as follows. The first section summarizes the data collectionmethodology. This section is followed by a description of the main characteristics of thesurveyed population, which covers also the profile of young welfare recipients (15 to 29years of age). 4 The third section presents the employment history of FSA recipients,followed by the findings on job search, education and training participation. Thefollowing sections describe the referral approaches between the social and employmentservices and examines the potential for activation in Serbia. The report concludeswith a set of policy recommendations for the activation of social assistancebeneficiaries.4 The 15-29 age group is defined as the target group under the Youth Employment and Migration joint programmeand covers those who had turned 29 years old at the time of the survey.8

1. Data and methodologyThe sample for the analysis comprises 868 FSA recipient households (1,652 householdmembers). 5 The structure follows the household structure of FSA recipientsstemming from the administrative data of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy,where single-member families are over-represented. The sample was adjusted toinclude a significant number of multi-member (large) families. The unit of observationis individuals in the age group 15 to 64 years old (working age population).Data were collected for the territory of Serbia according to the Nomenclature of Unitsfor Territorial Statistics (NUTS) level 2 (Region of Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija andWestern Serbia, Southern and Eastern Serbia). Figures are disaggregated also byurban/non-urban classification.As the main focus of the research is the labour market status and employment historyof FSA recipients, the data analysis centred primarily on individuals able to work.Where appropriate, certain groups categorized by the Law on Social Welfare as unableto work, were excluded. 6 This is the case for young people enrolled in school,who were excluded from the analysis on the return to mainstreamed education,referrals between institutions and participation in public works. In the discussionof activation potential, however, particular attention was paid to young recipients,including students (e.g. only temporarily unable to work). Other groups categorizedas unable to work include persons with disabilities, pensioners and care givers. Thefigures of FSA recipients registered with the National Employment Service (NES), i.e.those able to work, show that around 25 percent of FSA recipients in the age group15-64 is permanently or temporarily unable to work.Although the primary research group is FSA recipients, the analysis ultimately covereda more diverse group of welfare beneficiaries. This is because the recipients offinancial social assistance often face a variety of problems, such as disability, singleparenthood, family violence, drug abuse, and housing difficulties. This is evidencedby the high incidence of case management among FSA recipients who would nototherwise be included in this form of social work. 75 The sample is a two-tier stratified sample that reflects the national situation.6 Categories defined as “unable to work” are listed in Article 85 of the Law on Social Welfare.7 A CSW client facing financial deprivation as the only problem is not entitled to case management servicesaccording to the current regulations.9

2. Key characteristics of the surveyed populationMore women than men are FSA recipients (52.2 percent and 47.8 percent, respectively),which is in line with overall population estimates. 8 Table 1 below shows thatthe majority of recipients are in the age group 30 to 49 years of age (41.8 percent),followed by over one third of recipients in the age cohort 50 to 64 years of age. Youngpeople 15 to 19 years old represent 27.1 percent of all FSA beneficiaries.Table 1. Main characteristics ofFSA recipients (%)PercentSexMen 47.8Women 52.2Age group15-29 years old 27.130-49 years old 41.850-64 years old 31.1Settlement type and regionUrban 65.7Non-urban 9 34.3Belgrade 7.9Vojvodina 23.2Sumadija and Western Serbia 29.3Southern and Eastern Serbia 39.6Educational attainmentNo education 5.7Incomplete primary education 14.9Primary education (8 grades) 41.8Secondary education 35.5College education 1.0University 1.1Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.8 See Republican Statistical Office at http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/PageView.aspx?pKey=163).9 “Non-urban” corresponds to “Other” areas (“Ostalo” in the Serbian language) in the official statistics andincludes non-urban and sub-urban areas.10

Single-members households represent 36.4 percent of all recipient households. Twoand three-member households represent 22.2 percent and 16.7 percent of all recipients,while the share of four and five-member households is 12.9 and 7.7 percent,respectively. Households with six members and more account for 4.1. percent of thetotal.Over 65 percent of all FSA recipients live in urban areas. Southern and Eastern Serbiahas the larger share of FSA recipients (39.6 percent) and Belgrade the lowest (7.9percent). This is in line with poverty estimates that indicate lower poverty rates inBelgrade compared to other Serbian regions 10 .In terms of educational outcomes, over two third of FSA recipients have primaryeducation or less, nearly twice the share found for the overall population (30 percent).Among these, nearly 6 percent never went to school and 14.9 percent did notcomplete compulsory education. Only 38 percent of FSA beneficiaries has secondaryeducation, compared to over 70 percent recorded for the Serbian population 11 . Approximately2 percent of FSA beneficiaries have university education.Approximately 43 percent of FSA recipients also enjoy other types of social transfers.The largest overlap is between the FSA and child allowances, with around 94 percentof FSA recipient households also receiving child allowance and 5 percent receivingcaregivers’ allowance, with no significant difference among the various groups (Figure1). Other types of transfers (one-off payments, parental allowances and studentbursaries) are less common. None of the respondents received humanitarian aid inthe reference period.10 Republic Statistical Office (RSO), Living Standards Measurement Study Serbia 2002-2007. RepublicanStatistical Office, Belgrade, 2008.11 Republic of Serbia, First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic ofSerbia The Status of Social Exclusion and Poverty Trends in the Period 2008 – 2010 and Future Priorities,Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Belgrade, 2011.11

Figure 1. FSA and other social transfers (prior month), %100%80%60%40%20%0%All FSArecipientsUrban Non-urban Youth(15-29)Caregiver’s allowanceOne-off paymentParental allowanceStudent bursariesChild allowanceCaregiver’sallowanceOne-offpaymentParentalallowanceStudentbursariesChildallowanceAll FSA recipients 4.7 1.0 0.4 0.1 93.8Urban 5.1 1.0 0.4 0.2 93.3Non-urban 3.9 0.9 0.4 0.0 94.9Youth(15-29) 3.9 1.7 0.9 0.4 93.1Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.12

The average duration of the benefit is 4.4 years, with women more likely to remainlonger on the benefit system compared to men (4.7 and 4 years, respectively). Over6 percent of households had been receiving the FSA benefit for more than 10 years,19 percent for over 5 years. Only 10 percent had been on benefits for less than a year.This indicates that for many individuals and households the lack of resources is along-term problem from which it is difficult to escape.Over one fifth of all FSA recipients come from families that were themselves onsocial assistance. This share is significantly higher for individuals living in non-urbanareas and in Sumadija and Western Serbia (Figure A1 in the Annex). A relativelysmaller share of FSA recipients in Southern and Eastern Serbia comes from beneficiaryfamilies, despite the fact that this region has currently the largest share of FSArecipients. One possible explanation is that a significant number of poor individualsliving in this region became eligible following the 2004 amendments of the Law onSocial Welfare, namely after the setting of a single eligibility threshold for the wholecountry. 12The survey data also report the subjective assessment of recipients on the level ofneeds covered by the FSA benefit. For over 97 percent of respondents, the benefitcovers only half or less of their needs (Table A1 in the Annex). Over 80 percent deemsthat only one third of their needs is covered, with roughly the same percentage beingsatisfied through own production (Table A2 in the Annex). 13 The average amount thatis perceived to be needed is 29,756 Serbian dinars (RSD), approximately 1.5 timesthe minimum wage. 14 This average amount, however, drops to 25,417 RSD (around10,000 RSD per equivalent adult) when the OECD equivalence scale is applied.The younger the individual, the lower the share of perceived needs covered by thebenefit and the higher the amount that would be required. As young people form arather distinctive group, they are analyzed separately. Box 2 offers some basic dataon younger recipients.12 According to the previous social welfare law, the FSA eligibility thresholds were set at municipal levelon the basis of the average salary in the given municipality. When the threshold was unified, the number ofFSA recipients in municipalities with low salaries and low eligibility thresholds increased.13 The question on own production offers an interval of one third, which was found to be too large. Forfuture surveys it is suggested to offer a larger number of smaller intervals.14 The net minimum wage in Serbia in the same period was RSD 17,136, while the FSA ranged from RSD6,552 for single member household to RSD 17,690 dinars for households with two adults and four children.13

Box 2. Stylized facts about young FSA recipients (15-29 years old)Young men are more likely than young women to be FSA recipients. This changes later in life, as women inthe 50-64 age group become relatively more represented among beneficiaries. Two thirds of the youngrecipients live in urban areas and almost two fifths are still in school. If students are excluded (38 percentof young beneficiaries), the education structure of young FSA recipients shows that 20.3 percent didnot complete primary school. Youth represents 17 percent of all FSA recipients with uncompleted primaryeducation. The largest share of young recipients has high school education (43.4 percent); over 33percent completed primary school and 3 percent had university education attainment. Overall, youngFSA recipients are less educated than their non-recipient peers.Basic indicators on 15-29 years old beneficiaries, percentSexMale 51.9Female 48.1Settlement typeUrban 67.9Non-urban 32.1In employment 2.0Still in education 38.2Education of economically active 15No school 5.7Incomplete primary education 14.6Primary education 33.5Secondary education 43.4University education 2.8Source: RSO based on the FSA recipient dataset 2011For many young FSA recipients not in education or planning to return to school, work appears to bethe only option. However, only 2 percent are employed, but mainly in the informal economy. The socialtransfers young people rely on are most often child and caregiver allowances (Figure 1), as 17.5 percentof them are head of households.3. Financial social assistance (FSA) and employment historyThe figures of the survey indicate that only 3 percent of FSA recipients is employed,with 44 percent working in the formal economy and 56 percent involved in variouskinds of informal activities.Over 55 percent of working age FSA recipients have prior work experience, menmore than women (61 percent and 44 percent respectively), with an average lengthof employment of 12 years. Only 17.2 percent of young people – including those inschool at the time of the survey – have prior work experience (Table A3 in the Annex).15 Excluding those still in education.14

Over half of FSA recipients was dismissed, either due to bankruptcy/closure of theenterprise or for other reasons (Table 2 below). This is particularly the case for beneficiaries50 years of age and older. The composition of FSA recipients appears tobe shifting towards individuals who lost their jobs during the transition to a marketeconomy, given the relatively higher number of new FSA beneficiaries with prior formalwork history. For roughly 28 percent of beneficiaries employment ceased due tothe temporary/seasonal character of the job, while 6 percent left work due to illnessor disability. Over 65 percent of young beneficiary lost their job due to its temporary/seasonal duration, confirming that temporary work is the predominant form of employmentfor young people in Serbia. Around 3 percent of beneficiaries had to leavework due to personal or family reasons (including care responsibilities).Table 2. Reasons for losing the job (FSA beneficiaries %)ReasonsSource: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.As regard the type of work FSA recipients carried in the past, only 2 percent wereemployed in jobs organized by the local self government. Of these, 55 percent had anemployment contract, while 45 percent received a lump-sum payment for the workperformed. Men were more likely to be involved in such jobs compared to women. Ahigher share of FSA recipients (4.7 percent), however, participated to public works.Box 3. Public works in SerbiaTotalPublic works in Serbia target registered unemployed belonging to ‘hard-to-employ’ categories. Sinceits launch in 2006, this programme has provided temporary work (6 to 12 months) to the most disadvantagedgroups among the unemployed, mostly unskilled and long-term jobseekers. The salary isset at the statutory minimum wage, with higher levels paid to participants with secondary, college andtertiary education (15, 30 and 45 percent higher than the minimum wage, respectively). The programmealso includes off- and on-the-job training. Together with the measures designed under the aegis of theYouth Employment and Migration joint programme, public works is the only official “activation” policytargeting FSA recipients in Serbia. It is important to note, however, that FSA beneficiaries are onlyone of the target groups of this programme, the others comprising Roma individuals, refugees, youngpeople, workers with disabilities, older workers and long-term unemployed.SexAge groupsMale Female 15-29 30-49 50-64Dismissed (includingbankruptcy)55.6 58.2 52.3 27.8 48.3 68.9The job was temporary orseasonal27.8 27.1 28.7 65.8 33.8 13.7Own illness or disability 5.7 6.2 5.0 2.6 7.3 4.7Other personal and familyreasons1.7 1.3 2.2 0.0 1.6 2.2Looking after children orincapacitated adults1.4 0.0 3.2 2.6 2.6 0.015

The percentage of FSA recipients who found employment after participating to apublic work programme is 6.8 percent, which is higher than the employment ratefound for all public works’ participants (1.4 percent in 2007). 16 Men are more likelyto participate to a public work programme compared to women (6.1 percent and 3.4percent, respectively). Likewise, the percentage of individuals in the prime age (30-49 years old) and older cohort (50-64) engaged in public work is higher than that ofyoung people (6 percent, 5.8 percent and 4 percent, respectively.One third of FSA recipients who participated in public works think they have gainedthe skills needed to find a new job, while approximately one half considered the salarylevel of public works as a good enough incentive to work.Only 6.2 percent of all FSA beneficiaries would work rather than remain on benefits,if offered works at a salary equal to the FSA amount (Table 3). However, recipientsthat participated to public works are much more likely to opt for work comparedto other groups of beneficiaries (27 percent). The same applies to individuals livingin single and two-member households compared to beneficiaries of larger households.Table 3. FSA recipients opting to work rather than remain on benefits (%)Total FSA recipient who would work 6.2Total FSA recipients, excluding students 6.8Beneficiaries 15-29 years old (excluding students) 6.1Beneficiaries 30-49 years old 6.7Beneficiaries 50-64 years old 7.6Beneficiaries who participated in public works 26.7Beneficiaries who did not participate in public works 5.2Beneficiaries living in single-member households 9.2Beneficiaries living in two-member households 7.1Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.16 For a comprehensive assessment of active labor market policies (ALMPs) and their impact in Serbia, seeArandarenko, M., Krstić, G., Impact Analysis of Employment Policy and Active Labour Market Programmesin the Republic of Serbia, 2003-2007, Government of the Republic of Serbia, Deputy Prime Minister Office,Belgrade, 2008 available at http://www.inkluzija.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Impact-Analysisof-Employment-Policy-and-Active-Labour-Market-Programmes.pdf.16

The low availability to work is not surprising for at least two reasons. First, the workalternative was offered at a salary level equal to the social assistance benefit, whichis often much lower than the statutory minimum wage. 17 Figure 3 below indicatesthat the younger cohort is less available to work at low wages compared to other agegroups. This points to a reservation wage mechanism among young beneficiaries. 18Second, since a considerable share of beneficiaries do not have any prior work experience,they are unaware of all the advantages associated with being productivelyemployed. Public work participants, who had the opportunity to have a job and earna salary, seem to be more willing to work. The figures suggest that there is a core6.8 percent of FSA recipients who are willing and available to work for a salary levelequal to the amount of social assistance. 19Beneficiaries who would opt for work do so mainly to secure a minimum old age pension.This is why the older cohort of FSA recipients is more likely to opt for work thanother age groups (Figure 2). Other important reasons for opting to work is the needto have a productive role in society (do not want charity) and the opportunity to gainwork experience necessary to find better jobs. This is particularly the case for overa third of young people.Figure 2. Main reasons for opting to work, %10 20 30 40 50 60To secure minimum old agepension42.7I do not want charity25.9Gain work experience to find abetter job13.6Other responses5.1Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.Figure 3 below shows the main (perceived) obstacles that FSA beneficiaries face intaking up work. Nearly half of respondents indicate the lack of jobs as the main constraint,followed by poor health (17 percent). Given the high and rising unemploymentrates recorded in Serbia since the onset of the global economic crisis in 2008, thehigh share of respondents pointing to low labour demand as the main obstacle is notsurprising.17 The level of the social assistance benefit depends on the size of the household, e.g the lower the numberof family members, the lower the benefit.18 It would be interesting to explore if more young people would opt to work at higher salary levels.19 This share would probably have been higher had the survey been carried out of season, e.g. in the periodof the year when there are larger numbers of FSA recipients able and willing to work.17

However, a contributing factor may be the workers’ discouragement effect, as manyFSA recipients are long-term unemployed and they may have lost confidence in everbeing able to find a job.Figure 3. Main obstacles to work (%)0 10 20 30 40 50Lack of jobs48.6Poor health17.0Other responsesAgeCare dutiesLow qualifications/skills11.38.67.57.1Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.Age is also a significant constraint, especially for older beneficiaries (aged 50 yearsold and over). An almost equal share of FSA recipients (over 7 percent) find lack ofqualifications and care responsibilities as the as the main obstacles to work.4. Job search and return to educationAround three quarters of all FSA recipients are registered with the NationalEmployment Service (NES). However, only 41 percent were looking for a job in thefour weeks preceding the survey, with men being more active (47 percent) than women(35 percent). The younger cohort (15-29) is the most active in job search (Table A6 inthe Annex). If we compare these figures with the reasons for not looking for a job orwith the share of referrals, it is clear that many FSA beneficiaries have lost hope ofever finding work and the system does not encourage them to be more active.Among FSA recipients registered with NES, the main reason for not searching for ajob is illness or disability and care duties (Table 4).20 Those who are not registered include students, pensioners, as well as persons who are temporarily orpermanently unable to work for any other reason.18

Based on the figures presented so far, it is difficult to find a reasonable explanationof such high shares of FSA recipients (43 percent) claiming to be unable to work duepoor health or disability. 21 A significant share of recipients (19 percent) have careresponsibilities (looking after children or disabled adults).Most young FSA recipients registered with the employment service were not searchingfor a job due to care responsibilities (43 percent), with a much smaller share notsearching for a job due to poor health (14 percent of young beneficiaries compared to43 percent among FSA recipients). Less than 2 percent were discouraged workerscompared to over 16 percent found among the overall recipient population. Theseresults suggest that the potential for activation lies mostly with the younger group.Table 4. Reasons for not looking for a job (beneficiaries registered with the NES), %Reasons for not looking for a job All recipients YouthIllness or disability 43.4 13.9In education or training 1.1 6.7Looking after children or disabled adults 18.7 42.8Lost hope in finding a job 15.9 1.9Other personal or family reasons 13.4 17.2Reasons for not being available to workPersonal or family reasons (including maternity leave) 52.5 76.8Illness or disability 46.5 18In education or training 0.9 5.2Reasons for visiting the employment serviceComplying with the obligation to report regularly 67 60.5Consultations on the individual employment plan 6.3 2.6Need additional information (vacancies, measures) 7.3 11.7Consultations for intake into employment programmes 0.9 2.2Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011One third of FSA recipients registered with the employment service − but not lookingfor a job − would accept a job offer. However, 4.3 percent of beneficiaries to whom ajob was offered, rejected it.21 For follow-up surveys, it would be important to further detail the response “own illness and disability”and “taking care of another person”.19

Nearly 60 percent would be available to start work within two weeks. The reasonsfor not being available within the two weeks period range from maternity leave toillness and school attendance (Table 4). These results overlap to some extent withthe previous figures, except in that here personal and family reasons prevail overillness or disability.The high share of beneficiaries unable to work (over 40 percent) is in line with theincidence of FSA recipients involved in case management, pointing to objective reasonspreventing recipients from being active in the labour market. Again, young recipientsare less likely to indicate illness or disability as the reason for not being available forwork (18 percent compared to 47 percent).One way to gauge the level of individual job search activity is to look at the frequencywith which FSA recipients registered with the employment service visit their caseworkers and for which reasons. Only 3 percent of FSA beneficiaries visit NES officeson a monthly basis. Most beneficiaries (77 percent) visit the NES offices every threemonths and the remaining 20 percent once every six months. These visits are mainlyrelated to compliance with the formal obligation to report (67 percent), while 7 percentof beneficiaries visit the employment offices to have information on job vacanciesor on their individual employment plan. Young people seem to be more active inrequesting additional information.Jobs search activity is closely related to educational background and personalattitudes, including the individual’s willingness to engage in education, training oremployment. Only 3 percent of all FSA beneficiaries are willing to return to the formaleducation system, with young people more prone to return to education (10.6 percent)compared to other groups (Figure 4).20

Figure 4. Willingness to return to education or participate to a trainingprogramme (%) 226058.550403020100Total36.333.93.0 3.731.610.62.4MenWomen15-2934.832.232.014.64.01.8 0.41.330-4950-64UrbanNon-urbanWilling to return toformal educationWilling to engage intraining programmesSource: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.The share of FSA recipients who participated to a training programme at any time is8 percent. For some respondents, training was provided as part of the public workprogramme. The duration of training varied from few days (on-the-job) to a onemonth-long certified training programme (organized by a training institution). Formost beneficiaries, these programmes represent the only qualification ever gained.The data further suggest that 34 percent of FSA recipients would be willing to participateto training programmes. Among those who participated in public works, theshare is ten percentage points higher. Overall, the number of individuals interestedin training programmes is significantly higher than those interested in returningto formal education. Nearly 60 percent of young beneficiaries are willing to attendtraining courses, but only 11 percent would return to school.Approximately 32 percent of beneficiaries in the age group 30-49 years old and 15percent of those over 50 years of age would be willing to participate to training programmes.22 Figures for the 15-29 age group exclude students.21

The main reasons for not wishing to return to school or participate in a training programmeis age (Tables 5 and 6).Table 5. Main reasons for not returning to school (%)TotalSex Age group SettlementMen Women 15-29 30-49 50-64 UrbanNonurbanHas to earn a living 19.1 21.9 16.6 22.9 24.3 10.3 19.1 19.0Too old 48.0 48.6 47.5 2.0 40.1 80.4 49.2 45.8Education is inadequate anddoes not help to find a job1.4 1.9 0.9 1.2 2.1 0.6 1.4 1.3School is too far 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2Education is too expensive 17.1 17.7 16.6 50.2 17.3 1.2 16.4 18.5Care of children or otherfamily member7.0 0.9 12.4 15.8 8.3 1.2 7.0 7.0Other reasons 7.2 8.7 5.9 7.8 7.6 6.4 6.7 8.1Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.Over 19 percent of FSA beneficiaries state the need to earn a living as ground forrefusing to return to formal education. However, only 3 percent claim to be employed.This indicates that many FSA beneficiaries grossly misreport their real labourmarket status 23 . Around 17 percent of recipients are not available to return toformal education as it is too expensive. Interestingly, over half of young respondentsconsider education too expensive.The main obstacle to participate to training programmes is age (over 50 percentof beneficiaries consider themselves too old). Approximately 20 percent of respondentsdeem that attending a training programme would not help them in finding ajob, while 17 percent are not even aware that such possibility exists. The most worrisomefinding, however, is the fact that over 44 percent of young people are unawareof training opportunities 24 .23 Or, alternatively, that many use ‘work’ as an excuse for not returning to school.24 This fact would need to be explored further in the subsequent surveys.22

Table 6. Main reasons for not participating to training programmes (%)Sex Age group SettlementTotalNonM W 15-29 30-49 50-64 UrbanurbanToo old 50.5 50.2 50.7 2.7 46.3 75.2 50.7 50.1Training not helpful for jobsearch19.3 20.1 18.7 27.3 22.8 12.3 19.6 18.8Unaware of this possibility 17.4 15.8 18.8 44.0 19.0 4.5 16.5 19.1Other reasons 12.7 13.8 11.8 26.0 11.8 8.0 13.1 12.0Source: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.When conditionality is factored in, opinions shift considerably (Figure 5). Approximately19 percent of FSA beneficiaries would return to the formal education systemand over 34 percent would participate to a training programme if refusal is conditionedto benefit reduction or termination. Young people, again, are more prone toreturn to education (23 percent) compared to other groups. Young people and primeage individuals are more likely to participate to a training programme, if conditionalityis applied, while there are no significant difference for people living in urban andnon-urban areas.Figure 5. Willingness to return to education/participate to training(with conditionality), % 25403530252015105018.9Total34.219.334.718.533.8MenWomen22.815-2938.217.730-4936.115.623.750-6419.634.217.834.3UrbanNon-urbanAvailable to return toformal educationAvailable to particicpateto training programmesSource: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.25 The data on return to formal education exclude students.23

Generally, FSA beneficiaries –except to some extent the younger cohort −have littleinterest in returning to formal education, with cost being an important factor. Whenthese findings are compared to the low educational achievements of FSA recipients,a significant gap emerges between what beneficiaries are willing to undertake andwhat they would actually need.The solution may lie in training programmes, where the beneficiaries’ interest ishigher even without conditionality. However, a significant number of FSA recipientsdo not believe that the participation in training programmes would lead to a job,while others are concerned about costs and the possibility to combine training activitieswith work.5. ReferralsThe level of cooperation among social assistance, employment, education and localself-government institutions is still rather limited. 26 Despite the clear need for enhancedcooperation, the incidence of referrals from the employment service to thesocial service and vice versa is low – 3 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively (Figure6). Even when only beneficiaries registered with the employment service are takeninto consideration, the results do not change significantly (0.7 percent referred fromsocial to employment services and 3.7 percent from employment to social services).Young people are not involved in referrals as many are still in education. However,youth outside the formal education system appear to be neglected.Figure 6. Referrals between employment and social services (%) 2754323.03.72.33.74.42.53.81 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.50.0 0.00Total Men Women 15-29 30-49 50-64 Urban Non-urban% of FSA recipients referred % of FSA recipients referred from NES to CSWfrom CSW to NESSource: Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.26 Taylor, A., Good Practices in providing integrated employment and social services in Central and EasternEurope. ILO, Belgrade, 2009; Veljkovic, L., Podrška zapošljavanju socijalno isključenih mladih – Smerniceza razvoj integrisanih usluga tržišta rada i socijalne zaštite, ILO Belgrade, 200927 The data for 15-29 age group exclude those who are in formal education.24

The findings of the research point to the existence of an activation potential for FSAbeneficiaries, possibly even higher than shown by the data, as the sample did notinclude all FSA recipients able to work. The findings show that the current welfaresystem in Serbia is passive and encourages welfare dependency. In addition, thereare cases in which the FSA benefit is transmitted from one generation to the next.The financial burden this situation creates could be addressed by more active policyapproaches.The level of referrals between the institutions mandated to provide social andemployment services is extraordinarily low. And while referrals of FSA recipientsmay not be required by the legal framework or encouraged by the system, they arecertainly not prohibited. The new Law on Social Welfare broadens the opportunitiesfor cooperation among different services. At the same time, while a significant shareof FSA recipients is already included in the CSW case management approach, thedevelopment of specific forms of guidance would improve outcomes. As confirmedby the analysis, a considerable share of FSA beneficiaries face additional personaland environmental problems. Case management and greater cooperation amongthe relevant institutions is often indispensible to help clients deal with such problems.Judging from the main characteristics of the surveyed population, there appears tobe substantial scope to improve their educational outcomes. FSA recipients haveextremely low levels of educational attainment, but are reluctant to return to formaleducation and hardly ever they get referred to education and training programmes.Nevertheless, many young people are willing to return to education or participate totraining programme, if given the opportunity. For those unwilling to return to education/participateto a training, conditioning the benefit to participation would providea good incentive. Hence, conditionality should be considered in the development ofpolicy options.On whether activation is possible in Serbia, the experience of public works − the onlyactivation programme targeting social assistance recipients −has shown a positiveimpact on recipients’ employment outcomes. The skills and work experience acquiredduring public works help individual beneficiaries increase their employment prospectsand also improve their attitude towards training and the world of work. This confirmsthat activation of FSA recipients can yield positive results.28

7. Groups with greatest activation potentialIn terms of activation potential, the findings on the outcome of public workssuggest a positive impact, but unevenly distributed. Public works activities have thestrongest positive impact on prime age (30-49) and older (50-64) individuals.However, older individuals are more likely to be involved in public programmesand to be referred to other institutions for additional assistance compared to youngpeople. The figures show that up to now, young people have been rather neglected.A relatively small number of young FSA beneficiaries participated in any kind oftraining outside formal education. Still, they are more willing to return to education(11 percent) or participate to training programmes (60 percent). In addition, youngbeneficiaries in the labour force rarely mention illness or discouragement as thereasons for not looking for a job. This points to a higher activation potential foryoung FSA beneficiaries compared to other groups. Hence, any discussion aboutactivation potential and related policy options in Serbia needs to be age sensitive.So far, the public works programme has developed a targeting approach focusedon adult and older FSA recipients and it should be retained as such. For youngerFSA beneficiaries two basic approaches need to be considered. First, a systematicreturn to school and/or training for the age group 15 to 24 years of age. 33 Second,subsidized employment − along the lines of the schemes designed under the aegisof the Youth Employment and Migration joint programme − and integrated servicedelivery approaches. 34 In addition, specific forms of community work need to bedeveloped for young people. Box 4 offer possible policy options for future activationof young FSA recipients. They are in line with the measures proposed in thegovernment’s most recent strategic documents. 3533 Official statistics show that one third of the population 18-24 years old dropped-out of school Republicof Serbia, First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic of Serbia TheStatus of Social Exclusion and Poverty Trends in the Period 2008 – 2010 and Future Priorities, op.cit, 2011.34 Under the Youth Employment and Migration joint programme, the activation subsidy is financed by theYouth Employment Fund. The amount of transfer to the client is RSD 9,360 per month (60 percent of theminimum wage, equal to the amount provided by the unemployment benefit) Transport and child caregrants are also provided, according to individual needs. The training provided by a private sector enterpriseis subsidized with RSD 14,000 per client/ month (for maximum 6 months), Republic of Serbia, MDGAchievement Fund, Guidelines to administer active labour market programmes targeting disadvantagedyouth, Belgrade 200935 See Republic of Serbia, First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republicof Serbia The Status of Social Exclusion and Poverty Trends in the Period 2008 – 2010 and Future Priorities,op cit, 2011 and Republic of Serbia, Operativni program za razvoj ljudskih resursa 2012-2013, Belgrade 201129

Box 4. Activation policies targeting young FSA recipients (15-29)Activation policies targeting young people (15-29) should take into account the characteristics of the differentgroups within this age cohort:• For the 15 to 24 age group, approaches need to be developed to re-integrated them into mainstreamedformal education. This in turn would improve their future employment prospects. The existinglegal framework offers opportunities for inclusive and free primary and secondary level• For individuals older than 24 years of age, the focus should be on forms of activation otherthan formal education (as long as modern programmes of adult learning are not fully developedand available to larger segments of the population). The findings of the research suggests thatrelatively more individuals would opt for labour market oriented training programmes. Ideally, theyoung beneficiary would gain a valid certificate for the successful completion of the training program 36• Direct activation measures targeting young household members ineligible under the FSA, but eligibleto child allowance, if attending school. Around 30,000 children do not receive child allowanceand for 7,000 of them this is because they do not attend school 37• Strengthen inter-sectoral and inter-institutional cooperation among CSW, NES, schools andother public service providers with regard to targeting approaches, training pathways to be madeavailable, and the provision of professional guidance and support.The policy options listed above would also require strengthening the capacity of relevantinstitutions and sufficient resources to ensure the necessary level of financialincentives. This should be perceived by policy makers as an investment for the future,rather than simply a cost.36 The training programmes carried out under the aegis of the Youth Employment and Migration (YEM) jointprogramme are certified by the Regional Adult Education and Training Centres of the Ministry of Education.37 Mijatovic, B., Targetiranje decijih dodataka, Draft report for UNICEF, Belgrade 201030

8. Towards more inclusive policy optionsSocial inclusion is defined as the process that prevents people from becoming excludedand provides them with the opportunities for greater participation in thesociety. In other words, for social assistance recipients able to work this can beachieved by increasing their income level through better social transfers, but especiallyby providing opportunities for gaining decent and productive employment.But social inclusion is not about labour market integration only. It involves returnto mainstreamed formal education, participation in labour market oriented trainingprogrammes and availability of other services addressing problems related to drugand alcohol abuse and domestic violence.At policy level, activation of FSA recipients should be put at the forefront of socialinclusion strategies and be accompanied by the implementation of innovative interventionsgrounded on the following principles:Coordination – Outcome-oriented activation approaches require the developmentof joint and well coordinated programmes. This requires broader cooperationand well developed referral mechanisms among all relevant institutions.Under the current operational settings, referrals between the CSWs andthe NES local offices are limited as they are neither required nor encouragedby the system. With regard future partnership between social and employmentservices, priority should be given to build on the lessons learned frompast experiences, including the partnership agreements and referral mechanismspiloted under the public works schemes and the Youth Employment andMigration joint programme. Relationships with education institutions needto be developed with the purpose of re-integrating early school leavers anddropouts into mainstreamed education and training processes. 38Prioritization – Given the worsening socio-economic conditions driven by theglobal economic crisis, and the inactivity levels of FSA recipients, activationapproaches need to be prioritized in line with public expenditure constraintsand the potential for activation among the different beneficiary groups. 39Age sensitivity – Policy interventions need to be carefully designed to effectivelyaddress the needs of different age groups. Evidence shows that olderFSA recipients are more likely to accept work, also at lower salary levels, toensure the minimum pension benefits, while younger recipients would moreoften be willing to return to formal education or to participate to training programmes.38 Only 15 percent of secondary schools deliver reformed education programmes aligned to the requirementsof the Serbian labour market.39 For an analysis of the impact of the global economic crisis on poverty and employment in Serbia, seeMatkovic, G., Mijatovic, B., and Petrovic, M., Impact of the financial crisis on labour market and living conditionoutcomes in Serbia, Center for Liberal-Democratic Studies, Belgrade 2010.31

Monitoring and evaluation – Activation interventions need to be continuouslymonitored and rigorously evaluated to inform public policy development. Asthe newly adopted Law on Social Welfare introduces a number of changes inthe level of benefits and eligibility criteria, Table 7 below offers an initial baselinefor tracking the performance of the new provisions.BaselineTable 7. Selected indicators to monitor activation processesvalue (%)2011Percentage of FSA recipients employed at the time of the survey, of which 3.0In formal employment 44.0In informal employment 56.0Percentage of FSA recipients who participated in public works 4.7Percentage of FSA recipients employed after the completion of the public work 6.8Percentage of FSA recipients who participated in other active labour marketprogrammes (ALMP)...Percentage of FSA recipients employed after the participation in other ALMPs ...Percentage of FSA recipients registered with NES 76.5Percentage of FSA recipients looking for a job in the 4 weeks preceding the survey 41.0Percentage of FSA recipients who would return to school 3.0Percentage of young (15-29) recipients who would return to school 10.6Percentage of FSA recipients who would participate in a training programme 34.0Percentage of young recipients (15-29) who would participate in a training programme 60.0Percentage of FSA recipients referred from NES to CSW 3.7Percentage of FSA recipients referred from CSW to NES 0.7Percentage of FSA recipients referred by NES/CSW/others to formal education 4.0Percentage of FSA recipients referred to formal education by CSWs only ....Percentage of young recipients (15-29) referred by NES/CSW/others to formaleducation2.9Percentage of young recipients (15-29) referred to formal education by CSWs only ...Percentage of FSA recipients referred by NES/CSW/others to training programmes 2.7Percentage of FSA recipients referred to training programmes by NES only ...Percentage of young recipients (15-29) referred by NES/CSW/others to trainingprogrammes2.0Percentage of young recipients (15-29) referred to training programs by NES only ...32

Based on the evidence presented, the development of implementing regulations tooperationalize activation mechanisms in Serbia would need to take the followingrecommendations into consideration:Provide adequate activation incentives: Setting the “right” level of financialincentives for both potential employers and FSA clients is of the essence. Onthe one hand, incentives to provide training and/or employment opportunitiesneeds to compensate employers for the lower productivity of workers with noskills or prior work experience. 40 On the other, compensation levels for welfareclients need to be interesting enough to shift individual choices towardstraining and employment opportunities, rather than the social benefit. Atthe same time, individual compensation levels should not be higher than thewage level the same individual would get in the open labour market, so as notto make programme participation more attractive than unsubsidized work.For participation to training programmes, compensation levels needs to bebenchmarked to the statutory minimum wage (50-60 percent of the minimumwage) or to the official poverty line. 41 In this way the overall amount receivedby a FSA beneficiary during a training programme (which include also the FSAbenefit) would fall in the range of the income needed to cover basic needs perequivalent adult. 42 The minimum amount, in any case, should not be below thelevel of FSA set for a single-member household. 43Include FSA recipients in case management approaches. The exclusion fromcase management of regular FSA recipients, e.g. those who face financialdeprivation only, needs to be reconsidered. To ensure their social inclusion,many FSA recipients would need guidance from social service and employmentcase workers. However − given the resource constraints currently facedby the CSWs and NES offices − case management of FSA recipients couldinitially be limited to specific groups, such as youth 15 to 29 years old. Ideally,attention should be placed on those 7-10 percent of recipients that are readyfor activation. This would require a new, more qualitative level of cooperationbetween the CSW and the NES, with more extensive involvement of case workerson both sides. 4440 Under the YEM joint programme training grants and employment subsidies were set on the basis ofexisting practices for similar active labour market programmes.41 In the first quarter of 2011, the poverty line was set at RSD 9,406 per adult equivalent.42 The overall benefit need also to be set at a level comparable to the transfers provided by other trainingprogrammes administered by the NES.43 The findings of the research show that for most FSA recipients the wage set for public works (minimumwage) represented a good enough incentive to work.44 For example, it would be expected that the CSW communicates all important/sensitive information aboutthe clients to the NES and participates in planning of individual pathways for shared clients. Some jointforms of work are already present in this sense, for instance for young people leaving welfare institutions.33

Give CSWs caseworkers the responsibility to identify those who are able andwilling to work. CSW case workers should invest additional efforts in selectingthose clients with more activation potential for referral to other institutions.The new referral mechanism – currently being piloted − needs to bescaled up. Also, the CSWs should establish communication and informationmodalities with the NES offices to obtain timely and reliable information onthe activity status of their clients. This is of particular importance for the introductionof sanctioning mechanisms for those who fail to comply with theactivation requirements.Determine sanctioning mechanisms for clients able to work, but refusingactivation services. The findings of the research show that FSA recipientsbecome willing to return to education or training, if failure to do so results inbenefit reduction or termination. This indicates that the introduction of differentforms of sanctioning for those refusing to participate to activation serviceswith no acceptable grounds would serve as an incentive to shift from socialassistance to work.Develop partnerships with education institutions to encourage the return ofbenefit recipients to formal education. For some benefit recipients, educationalattainment at primary and secondary level matters the most in escapingwelfare dependency. Since 11 percent of young FSA recipients are willingto return to school, they should be re-introduced into mainstreamed formaleducation, since early school leaving and dropout is the best predictor of poorlabour market outcomes.Involve other institutions and community-based organizations to providementoring and coaching services to FSA clients with activation potential.Since more than 90 percent of FSA recipients are not searching for a job dueillness and discouragement, there is a need to develop new forms of clientcentredapproaches. This requires building the capacity of case workers toprovide individualized mentoring and coaching services, on the one hand, andoutsourcing certain forms of “social mentoring” and “motivational training” tocommunity based organizations. 4545 A good example of this kind of approach is the Roma literacy project funded by the municipality ofBelgrade, where students deliver literacy classes and receive volunteer level wages.34

ReferencesArandarenko M. i Krstić G., Impact Analysis of Employment Policy and Active LabourMarket Programmes in the Republic of Serbia, 2003-2007, Government ofthe Republic of Serbia, Deputy Prime Minister Office, Belgrade, 2008Matković G., Poverty in Serbia during the transition – Trends, policies, dilemmas.Paper presented at the World Bank International Conference on Povertyand Social Inclusion in the Western Balkans, Brussels, December14-15, 2010.Matković G. i Mijatović B., Analiza uticaja državne finansijske podrške siromašnima,Center for Liberal-Democratic Studies, Belgrade, 2008Matković G., Mijatović B. i Petrović M., Impact of the financial crisis on labour marketand living condition outcomes in Serbia, Center for Liberal-DemocraticStudies, Belgrade 2010Mijatović B., Targetiranje dečijih dodataka, Draft report for UNICEF, Belgrade 2010.Petrović M. Aktivacija korisnika MOP-a u Srbiji (“Prvi pečat u radnoj knjižici”),Social Inclusion Team, Office of the Prime Minister, 2009Petrović M., Measuring Subjective Well-Being of Social Assistance Recipients inSerbia. In C. Ruggeri Laderchi, S. Savastano (Eds.), Poverty and Exclusionin the Western Balkans – New Directions in Measurement and Policy,Springer, New York, forthcomingRepublic of Serbia, MDG Achievement Fund, Guidelines to administer active labourmarket programmes targeting disadvantaged youth, Belgrade 2009Republic of Serbia, Zakon o socijalnoj zaštiti, „Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije”,No24/2011.− Operativni program za razvoj ljudskih resursa 2012-2013, Belgrade 2011.− First National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in theRepublic of Serbia The Status of Social Exclusion and Poverty Trends inthe Period 2008 – 2010 and Future Priorities, Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister, Belgrade, 2011.Republic Statistical Office (RSO), Living Standards Measurement Study Serbia2002-2007, Republican Statistical Office, Belgrade, 2008.Taylor, A., Good Practices in providing integrated employment and social services inCentral and Eastern Europe, MOR, Beograd 2009.Veljković L., Podrška zapošljavanju socijalno isključenih mladih – Smernice za razvojintegrisanih usluga tržišta rada i socijalne zaštite, ILO Belgrade, 2009World Bank, Serbia Social Assistance and Child Protection Note, World bank,Washington D.C.35

STATISTICAL ANNEX 46Figure A1. Percentage of FSA recipients whose family of origin was benefit recipient, %6056.65040302010019.5Total23Men16.3Women15-297.930-492.750-64Table A1. Level of needs covered by FSA, %16Urban21Non-urban21Belgrade21.324.3VojvodinaSumadija andWest SerbiaSouth andEast Serbia14.6TotalAge groupsType of settlement15-29 30-49 50-64 Urban Non-urbanLess than third 82.3 90.0 83.6 73.9 84.7 77.8One third to one half 14.3 6.8 14.3 20.8 11.7 19.4More than a half 1.7 0.4 1.3 3.3 1.8 1.4Fully 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0Do not know 1.6 2.8 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.446 The figures of this Annex derive from the Republic Statistical Office (RSO), FSA recipient dataset, 2011.36